LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Also, why not put some cold cash on Joe? If the pollsters haven’t gone completely off the rails, it’s an ideal time to capitalize on the market discrepancies by betting on Joe Biden. How often do you have the experts giving a competitor a 70-90% likelihood of winning, while the betting odds’ implied probability is closer to 50%?!

What do people who bet money know anyway! I'd bet the arbitrage because the pollsters clearly have it down pat.

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:21 pm

In 2016 Hillary was never ever showing projections like these.

Actually she did. Several times.

The big diff between 2016 and 2020 (so far) is how stable it has been. In 2016, Hillary was up big -- at times; basically tied -- at other times. And at the end, Trump had a 28.6% chance -- under dog but not a crazy one.

2016 Hillary win probability per 538:

6/8 66.4%
7/1 78%
7/29 52.8%
8/14 89.2%
9/26 54.8%
10/17 88.1% (after Access Hollywood)
11/5 64.7% (10/27 was Comey/Weiner laptop)
11/8 71.4%

2020 Joe win probability:

6/1 70%
6/27 79%
8/1 71%
8/31 67%
9/10 75%
9/20 77%
10/1 80%
10/7 84%

Biden's been at a 70% or better win probability pretty much every single day for 4-5 months. Nothing has yet changed it in Trump's favor on a net basis.

Trump declines a bit with each bad news cycle -- tell all book #1/#2/#3/#4, NY times tax expose, wacko debate performance, Covid diagnosis -- and then he comes back a bit. But hasn't yet cut into Joe's lead. So what's going to move the needle in Trump's favor in the next four weeks? Primaries over, VPs named, conventions over, one debate over.

As compared to 2016, there's fewer undecideds and no action with third party candidates.

Joe's chances will keep going up with every day that passes without Trump closing the gap. An eight point lead in basketball is smaller with 10 minutes left and bigger with one minute left.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:58 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:50 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:44 pm

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:24 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:21 pmAnd nope, i don't think Biden will lift a finger to fix these things, either.

A bit unfair...no?

Obama "lifted a finger" with the ACA and a few other things and Mitch "Make Him A One Term President BY Denying Him any Legislative Success" McConnell saw to it that the tyranny of the minority prevailed. He blew up the "elections have consequences" canard the frothy rigntwingnuts want to constantly bring up now.

There is little doubt in my mind that given the chance, there will AT LEAST be a public option put on the table by a new administration...something the nation evidently would like to see...emphasis on "option"...

..

Would that option be... If you like your doctor.. eff you...you will take the doctor we give you option?

There will be a public “option” until employers Get fed up of providing a private option.

Then employers will overprice those and force everyone to the public turd option.

Goodbye dr choice and open access.

We had a wonderful healthcare option when I was in the army. It was all free and I'm not sure some of the army sawbones knew which end of the stethoscope went where. It was free though I'm glad I never had to have a prostate exam by any army doc.
Did I mention it was totally free healthcare?

'People are saying' The Air Force 'hands' out free prostate exams whether you want them or not...

(everyone makes fun of 'The Chair Force')

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:47 pm

Also, why not put some cold cash on Joe? If the pollsters haven’t gone completely off the rails, it’s an ideal time to capitalize on the market discrepancies by betting on Joe Biden. How often do you have the experts giving a competitor a 70-90% likelihood of winning, while the betting odds’ implied probability is closer to 50%?!

What do people who bet money know anyway! I'd bet the arbitrage because the pollsters clearly have it down pat.

Petey really is a moron. A professor at UF must lose his marbles every time he posts.

That article is dated 9/4 Sherlock/Petey. As of 9/2, the RCP betting average had Joe at +0.5% odds.

Today (10/7) -- +27.6%.

Maybe Petey could instruct us on the technique for making bets (or buying stocks) based on the prices as of a month prior. Could make some real cheddar that way.

Catbird wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:55 pm Would be equivalent to 10/12 or about since the election is a little earlier this year.

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:04 pm But the point is that Hillary's lead and win probability was much more volatile. At times, she was further ahead than Joe was at comparable times -- particularly after Access Hollywood. Other times less.

Joe's graph, by comparison, is nice and steady -- currently trending slightly up and to the right.

Having gone that way for four months, one wonders what could upset those trends in Trump's favor. Cake seems more baked.

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:04 pm But the point is that Hillary's lead and win probability was much more volatile. At times, she was further ahead than Joe was at comparable times -- particularly after Access Hollywood. Other times less.

Joe's graph, by comparison, is nice and steady -- currently trending slightly up and to the right.

Having gone that way for four months, one wonders what could upset those trends in Trump's favor. Cake seems more baked.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:22 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:15 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:00 pm this deduction stood out like a bad combover.

It would be sweet justice, wouldn’t it, if The Donald went to jail for deducting hairstyling expenses?

There is no doubt they have him dead on this. Those emails, notes between Trump and accountant are going to show the accountant warning DJT that this is an illegal deduction, and DJT saying go ahead and take it. At least that's how it would have to work between myself and my accountant.

... or maybe his accountant doesn't mind taking the fall.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:07 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:22 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:15 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:00 pm this deduction stood out like a bad combover.

It would be sweet justice, wouldn’t it, if The Donald went to jail for deducting hairstyling expenses?

There is no doubt they have him dead on this. Those emails, notes between Trump and accountant are going to show the accountant warning DJT that this is an illegal deduction, and DJT saying go ahead and take it. At least that's how it would have to work between myself and my accountant.

... or maybe his accountant doesn't mind taking the fall.

legal or accounting experts --- maybe i read this wrong, article(s) say the $70 k plus were deductions taken from 2004 - 2007? and that civil penalties have no statute of limitations, but criminal 3 years from filing as a result of an audit? so how would he face criminal penalties for the hair? also, does it matter that it was trump's production company that took the expense?

in any event, what i pieced together previously is that... he is under audit since 2011. that could go back to... possibly 2007 year taxes for criminal penalties? depending on when he filed. 2007 deduction was $2,500 on the hair. the $73 million in business expenses taken from 2010 on, widely quoted --- seems like that number at least isn't where the irs started? though trump seems like he/+ accountant haven't been shy about taking deductions since.

re: hair, supposedly trump (or trump productions) had been taking deductions for ivanka's hair up until 2013. if he's going down for hair, in the absence of other evidence or opinion, this amateur sleuth predicts he goes down for ivanka's hair.

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:04 pm But the point is that Hillary's lead and win probability was much more volatile. At times, she was further ahead than Joe was at comparable times -- particularly after Access Hollywood. Other times less.

Joe's graph, by comparison, is nice and steady -- currently trending slightly up and to the right.

Having gone that way for four months, one wonders what could upset those trends in Trump's favor. Cake seems more baked.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:57 pm How’s Cal Cunningham doing today?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:57 pm How’s Cal Cunningham doing today?

njbill wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:07 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:57 pm How’s Cal Cunningham doing today?

Still ahead. I guess Trump has lowered the bar for conduct of this nature. Voters don’t seem to care anymore.

njbill wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:15 pm Oh don’t get me wrong. I’m clear eyed enough to know this doesn’t help. The question is whether it hurts. Seems from the most recent polls that it may not have.